Table of Contents

Justice Systems Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in a Local Jurisdiction (County) in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2310)

Principal Investigator(s):
Wells, Susan J.,, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work;
Sedlak, Andrea, Westat, Inc.

Summary:

The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive,
case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of
serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed through the
justice process, from initial receipt of a report to final disposition
in the criminal and/or civil court. This was accomplished by in-depth,
detailed tracking, from a single jurisdiction, of both prospective and
retrospective samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child
protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies
that participated directly by providing case samples and case files
for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the
sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4)
the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point
of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating
agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. Part 1,
Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data, contains
three types of data. First, information is provided on each
maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator, background of the
perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of the incident. The
data continue with a roster of persons, which covers the relationships
among the individuals in the case and whether any of these individuals
were living together at the time of the maltreatment. Data from the
CPS abstract include which source brought the case to the attention of
Protective Services, the dates, priority, and investigation level of
the report, if any prior allegations of maltreatment had occurred that
involved either the same victims and/or perpetrators and, if so,
information on those reports, and the perpetrator's response to the
incident and level of cooperation with the investigation. For each
victim, information is given on medical findings, if applicable,
whether photographs were taken, whether a guardian was appointed,
whether the victim was assigned an interim placement, and the CPS
disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with information on
interviews with the victim, where the case was referred, the
assessment of risk in the case, and whether the victim was placed in
foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides
information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the
outcome as determined by the court. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of
Hearings Data, focuses on the schedule of hearings, such as who was
present and if they were represented by an attorney, whether the
hearing took place, and, if not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law
Enforcement Abstract Data, contains dates of incidents, reports, and
arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5,
State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case
closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type
of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how
the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney
filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, whether the victim was
interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing, and whether the victim
was deposed by the state attorney after the case was filed. Part 6,
Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data, contains information on date
of arrest, filing, and court hearing, whether a public defender was
assigned, number of hearings, type of hearing, and coded remarks about
the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney Addendum Data, provides
"no-file" data from the State Attorney Questionnaire Addendum,
including if the no-file was a warrant or arrest, date of the no-file,
and reason for the no-file.

The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive,
case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of
serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed through the
justice process, from initial receipt of a report to final disposition
in the criminal and/or civil court. This was accomplished by in-depth,
detailed tracking, from a single jurisdiction, of both prospective and
retrospective samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child
protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies
that participated directly by providing case samples and case files
for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the
sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4)
the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point
of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating
agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. Part 1,
Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data, contains
three types of data. First, information is provided on each
maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator, background of the
perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of the incident. The
data continue with a roster of persons, which covers the relationships
among the individuals in the case and whether any of these individuals
were living together at the time of the maltreatment. Data from the
CPS abstract include which source brought the case to the attention of
Protective Services, the dates, priority, and investigation level of
the report, if any prior allegations of maltreatment had occurred that
involved either the same victims and/or perpetrators and, if so,
information on those reports, and the perpetrator's response to the
incident and level of cooperation with the investigation. For each
victim, information is given on medical findings, if applicable,
whether photographs were taken, whether a guardian was appointed,
whether the victim was assigned an interim placement, and the CPS
disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with information on
interviews with the victim, where the case was referred, the
assessment of risk in the case, and whether the victim was placed in
foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides
information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the
outcome as determined by the court. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of
Hearings Data, focuses on the schedule of hearings, such as who was
present and if they were represented by an attorney, whether the
hearing took place, and, if not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law
Enforcement Abstract Data, contains dates of incidents, reports, and
arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5,
State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case
closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type
of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how
the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney
filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, whether the victim was
interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing, and whether the victim
was deposed by the state attorney after the case was filed. Part 6,
Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data, contains information on date
of arrest, filing, and court hearing, whether a public defender was
assigned, number of hearings, type of hearing, and coded remarks about
the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney Addendum Data, provides
"no-file" data from the State Attorney Questionnaire Addendum,
including if the no-file was a warrant or arrest, date of the no-file,
and reason for the no-file.

Guidelines for Applying for Restricted Data

Before you begin an application you will need the following information to complete the form

General Requirements:

appointment at research institution; appointment must be under the jurisdiction of the receiving institution

degree requirements (possibly doctorate)

Must be submitted:

project description

IRB approval

approved security plan

roster of research and IT staff who can access or view the data or computer where data are hosted.

confidentiality pledges for all people on roster

Some require:

CV's

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Any public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Unit of Observation:
All child abuse and neglect cases in the selected
county from 1993-1994.

Universe:
All serious child abuse and neglect cases in the sample
county.

Data Type(s):
event/transaction data, and administrative records data

Data Collection Notes:

(1) The structure of the data files for Parts 1-6 is
not conceptually or physically a true hierarchical structure. All of
these files contain multiple record types and some contain repeating
records within a record type and/or missing record types. Also, some
repeating series of information may span more than one record
type. The number of records in Part 1 ranges from 369 to 1,037 in the
26 record types with 1,284 variables and a logical record length of
125. The number of records in Part 2 ranges from 145 to 2,463 in the
10 record types with 486 variables and a logical record length of
129. The number of records in Part 3 ranges from 145 to 1,295 in the 2
record types with 31 variables and a logical record length of 46. The
number of records in Part 4 ranges from 472 to 4,158 in the 5 record
types with 151 variables and a logical record length of 79. The number
of records in Part 5 ranges from 144 to 258 in the 7 record types with
255 variables and a logical record length of 132. Finally, the number
of records in Part 6 ranges from 247 to 2,172 records in the 2 record
types with 28 variables and a logical record length of 34. (2) The
user guide, codebooks, and data collection instruments are provided as
Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR
Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to conduct a
comprehensive, case-level examination of how serious child abuse and
neglect cases flow through the justice process, from initial receipt
of a report to final disposition in the criminal and/or civil
court. This was accomplished by in-depth, detailed tracking, from a
single jurisdiction, of both prospective and retrospective case
samples of serious child abuse reported to child protective services
and law enforcement agencies. The researchers anticipated that the
results of this project would address some of the justice system's
data needs on abuse and neglect cases, and would enable the design of
a national-level system for tracking reported child abuse cases that
are investigated, prosecuted, or adjudicated by criminal justice
agencies.

Study Design:
The four agencies that participated directly by
providing case samples and case files for tracking were: (1) Child
Protective Services (CPS), from which 225 cases were sampled from CPS
files concerning reports received in 1993 in which serious abuse or
neglect was confirmed by investigation, (2) the sheriff's office, from
which 225 cases were sampled from the sheriff's 1993 arrest and
complaint records concerning child abuse or neglect offenses or abuse
offenses committed against minors, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services
(DCLS), from which 65 dependency court cases were sampled that
involved child abuse or neglect and were closed in 1994, and (4) the
county prosecutor's office, from which 60 criminal court cases were
sampled that involved child abuse and were closed in 1994. Two of the
samples (CPS and sheriff's office) were prospective, tracking cases
from the time the abuse or neglect was reported through the final
disposition of the case, whether in that agency, en route to the
court, or in the criminal or dependency court itself. Cases sampled at
the entry points in CPS and law enforcement were cross-checked to
identify their actual point of first entry to determine which agency
was first notified of the abuse. The other two samples (DCLS and
county prosecutor's office) were retrospective, tracking cases
backward to identify how they flowed though other agencies in the
county's system. Each case was abstracted at the point of sampling and
then tracked throughout the other participating agencies by data
collectors who were each trained in one of the four agencies involved
in the study. At their "home agency," the data collectors developed
expertise on how the agency handled cases, what to expect in agency
files, and whom to contact when questions arose about a case. Matches
were sought based on several identifiers such as name, birth date,
sex, race, description of the incident, date of the incident, and
nature of harm to the child. Once the cases were selected, the
researchers examined the cases against the information about the cases
sampled in the other agencies to identify and remove duplicates.

Sample:
One county was selected out of the 42 counties in the
Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3),
sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect. This county was chosen for the high degree of
automation in its existing recordkeeping system and for the fact that
the prosecutor's office had undertaken a more aggressive approach to
prosecution. Within the county, sample selection from the four
agencies included only child abuse and neglect cases considered
serious throughout the life of the case, and represented the full
range of child abuse cases that occurred in a year. The CPS cases
included in the sample represented calls to the hotline from January 1
through October 10, 1993. Cases included in the DCLS sample were those
closed between January 1 and April 4, 1994. The sample from the
sheriff's office was selected in two phases. In the first phase, all
arrests that fit the specifications and were not duplicates with other
agencies resulted in 100 qualifying 1993 arrests. In the second phase,
the first 125 cases that involved complaints concerning violations of
the selected statutes and were reported to the sheriff's office
between January 1, 1993, and May 17, 1993, were selected. The sampling
framework from the prosecutor's office included all criminal cases
handled by the Child Abuse Unit that were closed between January 1,
1994, and August 25, 1994.

Data Source:

case files and administrative records from four county
agencies

Description of Variables:
Part 1, Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and
CPS Abstract Data, contains three types of data. First, information is
provided on each maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator,
background of the perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of
the incident. The data continue with a roster of persons, which covers
the relationships among the individuals in the case and whether any of
these individuals were living together at the time of the
maltreatment. Data from the CPS abstract include which source brought
the case to the attention of Protective Services, the dates, priority,
and investigation level of the report, if any prior allegations of
maltreatment had occurred that involved either the same victims and/or
perpetrators and, if so, information on those reports, and the
perpetrator's response to the incident and level of cooperation with
the investigation. For each victim, information is given on medical
findings, if applicable, whether photographs were taken, whether a
guardian was appointed, whether the victim was assigned an interim
placement, and the CPS disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with
information on interviews with the victim, where the case was
referred, the assessment of risk in the case, whether the victim was
placed in foster care, and any amendments to the report after the
initial investigation and classification. Part 2, Dependency Court
Abstract Data, provides information on the source of the case, which
victims were named in the indictment, the relationship to the victim
of other persons who were party to the case, whether there were prior
charges against the defendant, and, if so, information on those
charges. Other variables provide information on the reason the case
was closed, whether actions included a termination of supervision and
a new dependency petition and, if so, a description of the petition or
motion, outcome as determined by the court, explanation of the
petition or court order, status of the case, victim's status at the
closing of the case or in the open case, whom the victim was living
with, what the child's wishes were as stated in the record, the date
and action at issue in the report, and whether a guardian was
present. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data, focuses on
the schedule of hearings, such as who was present and if they were
represented by an attorney, whether the hearing took place, and, if
not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law Enforcement Abstract Data,
contains data from law enforcement sources, including dates when
incidents to which the police responded first occurred and last
occurred, date a complaint report was taken, date the investigative
report was completed, arrest date, how the offense was cleared, where
the case was filed, whether the case was dropped by law
enforcement and, if so, why. Variables regarding the case cover the
number of charges, details of each charge, and prior offenses and
outcomes for the perpetrator, such as substance abuse, abuse of
children, and violence toward or abuse of spouse or partner, as well as
criminal status at the time of the offense. Additional information is
provided on how the case was handled: confession, victim interview,
and what measures were taken to protect the child. Part 5, State
Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case closing,
charges, and sentencing, as well as information on whether a guardian
ad litem was appointed, whether a victim impact statement was
submitted, type of defense attorney representing for the perpetrator,
number of defendants, if a juvenile, how the defendant was referred to
adult court, and whether the state attorney filed cases on other
perpetrators in the case. Data are also provided on the defendant's
prior offenses, which agencies were involved in the investigation,
whether the victim was interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing,
and whether the victim was deposed by the state attorney after the
case was filed. Part 6, Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data,
contains information on date of arrest, filing, and court hearing,
whether a public defender was assigned, number of hearings, type of
hearing, and coded remarks about the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney
Addendum Data, provides "no-file" data from the State Attorney
Questionnaire Addendum, including if the no-file was a warrant or
arrest, date of the no-file, and reason for the no-file.

Response Rates:
Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:
None.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 2000-05-01

Version History:

2006-03-30 File UG2310.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).